This is less a review and more a list of pro's and con's regarding the 'rule' that review's need to end with a defining score, say for instance "4 stars out of 5" or "90/100". I've never been a huge fan of this practice. I read numerous video-game, film and comic magazine's, and have done so my entire life. To me at least, the end score has always been kind of arbitrary, like trying to cram in four pages of writing into one insignificant, generic, defining number. I also find the apparent need for them more than a little belittling too, as if people are incapable of reaching a conclusion on their own based on the facts presented? Or even worse yet, the silly idea that people will not want to read very much, making the need for some sort of deliberate safety net to save their brain's from working too hard? How necessary they apparently are? With basically every popular review site/magazine/publication having their own version of an end score. Even more damaging are the comments section attached to said sites as hateful, arguing over the score, "this game got a 7 and the last game got an 8, that's crap, the reviewers don't know what they are doing, they must be getting paid by publishers, why else would they award a score that high/low? Outrage!!!" This isn't even an exaggeration, this is commonplace, I just used cleaner and less spiteful language than the usual commenter's. "The reviewer disagreed with me?? Heresy!" God, calm down everyone, it's a bloody opinion piece, why does everyone turn so horrid when placed in front of a keyboard these day's? The review score is a pretty common practice that's become synonomous with the art of reviewing. Although I'm not buying into that train of thought, from my very first review I was faced with a decision, and decided to do away with the old review system trope and not worry about a silly score awarded at the end, basically negating all the hard work I had poured into the piece. If there is a an award reference summing up every single aspect of the review, which in my opinion is impossible and more than probably just slapped on instead without much thought, than why even have the review in the first place?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into it, and it's just there as a conclusion to an article, a sum up, if you will? Maybe it's not such a bad thing having something quick to reference, maybe you're in a hurry, or maybe just want a chance to glimpse the quality before starting to read the big review, hey even I can be accused of doing that from time to time, and God knows at times I can be mighty good at waffling on, just take a look at some of my previous reviews. Maybe it's more understandable when I look at it from both sides? Either way, I'll be sticking to my own format for review. If I ever do land that dream job of writing for a major publication, that's when I'll have to make the appropriate changes, until then however, this is my show and I'll be running it my way, absent review scores and incessant waffling galore, it's all intentional by the way. This is a fan column, I never wanted to just make a standard review site, this world is meant to be seen through the eyes of a raving fan. Fans exaggerate, fans obsess and rant and rave, it's their passion and they take it seriously. I think it makes for a more interesting read when the writer has a real love of the subject. I just write what I know, based on my own opinions and experiences, with the sole purpose of informing, and at the end, if I've done my job properly, the reader is left with enough information to form an idea of whether they are interested in the subject matter or not? Isn't that what a review is meant to be anyway?
I appreciate you taking the time to read my ramblings, what do you think? Review scores a good or bad thing? Necessary sometimes or never? As usual let me know your thought's in the comments section, look forward to any feedback, cheers dears :)
Follow me on Moviepilot
and Facebook: Johnny Clash